"Mark Stone" wrote in message
om...
"Limnophile" wrote in message
...

Now if only they would stay small, so you could keep them in a
reasonable-sized tank.
My oscar is my favorite too, but I wish he would be ok in something
smaller
than a 40 gallon tank.

Limnophile

Einstien tells us that all things are relative -- i guess that's true.
I picture a 200 gal tank as "reasonable", larger than that as "large"
and a mere 40 as uncomfortably small.

One thing about large aquariums, and I ain't kidding here, is that
they are *much* easier to maintain than small tanks. I think it's
because their size increases their stability -- they are less likely
to have sudden temperature and water condition changes. Once their
cycled and stocked, they're bulletproof (so to speak) with some simple
maintenance and much less likely to have problems.

--Mark

I agree in principle, but to me "large" is based on whether I can have it in
my apartment without it crashing through the floor. So 40 gallons is "large"
to me. I'm thinking of replacing the 40 with a 75, but not sure if the floor
will hold it.

Oscars are great, but it seems that having only one fish in my biggest tank
is somewhat of a waste.
My second largest tank is a 29 gallon, which has about 45 small fish. (
Overstocked, I know, but well - maintained)

Limnophile